But do I think that our actions in anyway violate the War Powers Resolution, the answer is no.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Can any of us even imagine, after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt suggesting we negotiate a resolution or that we could simply prosecute those involved? Of course it is unimaginable. We are right to be in the Middle East, and we are right to treat this as the war it is.
There are always interests that are furthered by war. Therefore, those who have power and influence can also stop them... we should not accept any excuses from those in power.
Anyone who considers using a weapon of mass destruction against the United States or its allies must first consider the consequences... We would not specify in advance what our response would be, but it would be both overwhelming and devastating.
Only we, the public, can force our representatives to reverse their abdication of the war powers that the Constitution gives exclusively to the Congress.
I don't think that anybody should be ruling in or ruling out anything while we are conducting diplomacy.
It has been one of my difficulties, in arguing this question out of doors with friends or strangers, that I rarely find any intelligible agreement as to the object of the war.
I think we need to look for any opening we can to avoid a war and we shouldn't pass up any opportunity for resolution.
Missile strikes - or any other such action - against a sovereign nation is an act of war.
If we have reason to believe someone is preparing an attack against the U.S., has developed that capability, harbours those aspirations, then I think the U.S. is justified in dealing with that, if necessary, by military force.
The War Powers Act requires presidents to seek the consent of the American people, through their representatives, before sending our troops into war. It is the responsibility of Congress to deliberate and consult with the executive branch before involving ourselves in a military conflict.